Observational studyPloS one2024
HIV self-test performance evaluation among priority populations in rural Mozambique: Results from a community-based observational study.
Observational study in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn 2021, Mozambique initiated community-based oral HIV self-testing (HIVST) to increase testing access and uptake among priority groups, including adult males, adolescents, and young adults. Within an HIVST pilot project, we conducted a performance evaluation assessing participants' ability to successfully conduct HIVST procedures and interpret results.
methodsA cross-sectional study was performed between February-March 2021 among employees, students (18-24 years of age), and community members, using convenience sampling, in two rural districts of Zambézia Province, Mozambique. We quantified how well untrained users performed procedures for the oral HIVST (Oraquick®) through direct observation using a structured checklist, from which we calculated an HIVST usability index (scores ranging 0-100%). Additionally, participants interpreted three previously processed anonymous HIVST results. False reactive and false non-reactive interpretation results were presented as proportions. Bivariate analysis was conducted using Chi-square and Fisher exact tests.
resultsA total of 312 persons participated (131[42%] community members, 71[23%] students, 110[35%] employees); 239 (77%) were male; the mean age was 28 years (standard deviation 10). Average usability index scores were 80% among employees, 86% among students, and 77% among community members. Main procedural errors observed included "incorrect tube positioning" (49%), "incorrect specimen collection" (43%), and "improper waiting time for result interpretation" (42%). From the presented anonymous HIVST results, 75% (n = 234) correctly interpreted all three results, while 9 (3%) of study participants failed to correctly interpret any results. Overall, 36 (12%) gave a false non-reactive result interpretation, 21 (7%) a false reactive result interpretation, and 14 (4%) gave both false non-reactive and false reactive result interpretations. Community members generally had lower performance.
conclusionsDespite some observed testing procedural errors, most users could successfully perform an HIVST. Educational sessions at strategic places (e.g., schools, workplaces), and support via social media and hotlines, may improve HIVST performance quality, reducing the risk of incorrect interpretation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.